2017 (1) TMI 1066 - HC - Customs

Whether the provisions of Sections 154 to 157 and 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure would apply in respect of the proceedings under the Customs Act, in view of Section 4(2) of the Cr.P.C.? Whether in respect of offences under Sections 133 to 135 of the Customs Act registration of FIR is compulsory before the person concerned is arrested and produced before the Magistrate? Held that - registration of FIR is not necessary before arresting a person under Section 104 of the Customs Act. Sections 154 to 157 and Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure do not apply to a case under the Customs Act, 1962. Reliance placed in the case of Bhavin Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Gujarat 2009 (10) TMI 564 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT and Sunil Gupta v. Union of India 1999 (4) TMI 92 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH - it was held in the case of Bhavin Impex Pvt. Ltd. that under Section 13 of the Central Excise Act empowers the Central Excise Officers to arrest a person whom he has reason to believe to be liable to punishment under the Act without issuance of warrant and without registration of an FIR or a complaint before the Magistrate - further in the case of SUNIL GUPTA, it was held that arrest can be made without a warrant. Petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Sections 154 to 157 and 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) to proceedings under the Customs Act.
2. Necessity of registering an FIR for offences under Sections 133 to 135 of the Customs Act before arrest and production before the Magistrate.
3. Legality of arrest and detention under the Customs Act without following Cr.P.C. procedures.
4. Petitioner's entitlement to habeas corpus relief and release from custody.
5. Compliance with Cr.P.C. mandates in the investigation of Customs Act offences.
6. Validity of investigations into non-cognizable and cognizable offences under the Customs Act without following Cr.P.C. procedures.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Sections 154 to 157 and 173(2) of Cr.P.C. to Customs Act Proceedings:
The court examined whether the procedural mandates of Cr.P.C. apply to the Customs Act. It held that Sections 154 to 157 and 173(2) of Cr.P.C. do not apply to proceedings under the Customs Act. The Customs Act provides a distinct procedural framework for dealing with offences, including the power to arrest under Section 104 without the necessity of registering an FIR or following the Cr.P.C. procedures for investigation and filing a final report.

2. Necessity of Registering an FIR for Offences under Sections 133 to 135 of the Customs Act:
The court ruled that the registration of an FIR is not mandatory before arresting a person under Section 104 of the Customs Act. The Customs Officer's power to arrest does not require the preliminary step of filing an FIR, as the purpose of arrest under the Customs Act is to ensure proper inquiry and enforcement of customs laws rather than to initiate criminal prosecution immediately.

3. Legality of Arrest and Detention under the Customs Act without Following Cr.P.C. Procedures:
The court upheld the legality of arrest and detention under the Customs Act without adhering to Cr.P.C. procedures. It emphasized that the Customs Act has specific provisions for arrest and detention, which include safeguards such as producing the arrested person before a Magistrate without unnecessary delay, as mandated by Section 104(2) of the Customs Act. The court noted that the customs officers are not police officers and their powers are defined distinctly under the Customs Act.

4. Petitioner's Entitlement to Habeas Corpus Relief and Release from Custody:
The petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that his arrest and detention were illegal. The court found that the arrest and detention were in compliance with the Customs Act and did not violate the petitioner's fundamental rights. Consequently, the petitioner was not entitled to habeas corpus relief for immediate release from custody.

5. Compliance with Cr.P.C. Mandates in the Investigation of Customs Act Offences:
The court clarified that the Customs Act's procedural framework supersedes the Cr.P.C. mandates for investigating customs offences. The Customs Act allows for specific investigative and enforcement actions, including arrest, search, and seizure, without the need for compliance with Cr.P.C. provisions such as registering an FIR or maintaining a case diary.

6. Validity of Investigations into Non-Cognizable and Cognizable Offences under the Customs Act without Following Cr.P.C. Procedures:
The court held that investigations into both non-cognizable and cognizable offences under the Customs Act are valid without following Cr.P.C. procedures. The Customs Act provides its own mechanisms for dealing with offences, including the power to investigate, arrest, and detain individuals suspected of customs violations. The court emphasized that the procedural safeguards within the Customs Act are sufficient to ensure fair and lawful enforcement of customs laws.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition concerning reliefs (I) to (IV) and left reliefs (V) and (VI) open for future consideration. The petitioner did not press for relief (VII) at this stage. The interim bail granted to the petitioner was not disturbed, and the court concluded that the Customs Act's procedural framework is adequate and distinct from the Cr.P.C., thus negating the necessity of following Cr.P.C. procedures for customs offences.

← Previous Next →